Dear All ..

I'm following the CCWG-Accountability mailing list, as an observer, and have noticed a discussion on 'Consensus' .. The following is an excerpt from one of the emails:  

"The Chair(s) shall be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations:

a)      Full Consensus - a position where no minority disagrees; identified by an absence of objection

b)      Consensus – a position where a small minority disagrees, but most agree"

whereas our consensus building document states:

"the chair will be responsible for designating each ICG position as having one of the following designations:

· Recommendation by consensus - when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings.

· Recommendation - a position where consensus could not be reached after the matter is sufficiently debated and after the chair and two vice chairs together with interested parties have made their utmost efforts to find a satisfactory solution for the matter in order to achieve consensus. Those who still object to the recommendation should be invited to document their objections for the final report."

Would such inconsistency cause confusion within the community or is it ok to have different interpretations in different though related contexts?

Kind Regards

--Manal